Saturday, 19 December 2009

Climate change deal

Well, as predicted with perfect accuracy here on Thursday, the climate change conference has not proved to be a success.

For the most part it appears that China played a very tough game with the US and led the poorer world astray. Now we have a 'starting position' for the next talks. All very predictable so far.

The idea of the bigger countries doing a deal though is a sound one. The idea that everyone has to buy in is madness.

Why try and get mad Hugo Chavez on board? There is nothing Venezuela can really add and as Chavez takes them back to the stone age their small emissions will fall anyway. On a different level it is the same with Saudi Arabia, they are not going to agree so let's not bother.

In fact, when they next gather in Mexico the thing to do is just invite the really polluters of the world plus some of the countries who may become so; realpolitik will deliver a solution that left-wing attempts at global consensus never will.


Mark Wadsworth said...

How do you mean "not a success"???

Short of reaching no agreement whatsoever, this is pretty much the least-worst we could have hoped for, and will enable Nick Drew to crack on with allowing loads more gas or coal fired power stations to be built, once he's been squeezed in as Energy Minister.

hatfield girl said...

Sounds like the German Chancellor has had enough of Brown-led shambles. Der Spiegel is reporting that:

'At the end of June or in early July, the next ministerial-level climate conference is expected to be held in Bonn, home to the UN climate change secretariat. The event will be an interim meeting in the run-up to a new climate summit in Mexico City to take place one year from now.

During the meeting the German government, led by Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen of Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats, is expected to facilitate work on more concrete, legally binding goals for the 192 participating nations.'

Budgie said...

Hurrah!! No deal - I feel euphoric!

The fact is, trying to assess (they can't be measured) historical temperatures, especially global, with any accuracy and certainty (reliably to tenths of a degree) is well nigh impossible.

We cannot measure modern temperatures accurately either and we have the instruments to do it. You only have to read the leaked CRU emails to see the problems with historical and modern records.

Consequently graphs which purport to show sudden modern temperature rises should be treated as vaguely interesting but not the Green Deity's final word.

Richard Elliot said...

I think a deal of the willing might be the best way to go.

I had a little market based idea the other day (probably completely mad and unworkable), but I'll share it:
- There is a deal of the willing, which will probably be developed nations and exclude China and India.
- Lots of people will get upset at this and say it won't really help.
- Some clever person (or group of NGOs) develops a Fair Trade type sticker for goods, which signifies it has been produced in a country that has signed up to reducing emissions or not.
- Consumers then buy goods based on their moral beliefs. It might then produce drop in sale of products (e.g. from China) or not.
- A polluting country might feel the moral pressure or get upset that their development is happening less quickly and sign up.

Will never work......

Clay Barham said...

Why must all the media be so deceptive when showing video of greenhouse gas emmission from all those steam-belching smoke stacks? That is not carbon dioxide smoke, but moisture. True, moisture is the biggest greenhouse gas of all, forming a global warming blanket in the form of clouds, falling snow and rain, but telling people that won't gain points for the communists pushing our surrender to illogical forces.

CityUnslicker said...

The 'models' that are so derided can predict very accurately the effect of a volcanic eruption on a global scale. Whilst I accept the obvious communist infiltration of the green movement as a whole, I can't really agree that global warming is hoax we need do nothing about.

There are far too many signs that nature is changing far more rapidly than would be expected otherwise. Reducing Co2 is a good example of the precautionary principle.

Still on reflection don't think we will get a deal with the G77 dreaming that the West will cave in to their mad communist ideas.